IETF-113 MANET WG meeting minutes

When: Monday, March 21, 2022, afternoon session 1, 13:00 - 14:00 CET
Where: Park Suite 2 + online

Meetecho:
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf113/?group=manet&short=&item=1
Jabber: xmpp:manet@jabber.ietf.org?join
Notepad: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-113-manet

Chairs: Don Fedyk (remote), Ronald in 't Velt (on-site)

1. Chairs' Introduction (10 min)

• Note Well, etc.
• Document status
• Errata status

2. Discussion on TSV Area Early Review feedback on credit-based flow control

DLEP extension I-Ds (20 min) - Suggested merging of
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension and
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification - Impact on
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension

Alvaro Retana (AD) Weighed in on Keeping Draft separate. It has been
done in other WGs.
Plan to move all draft together as a group.
Circle back to David Black to make sure all his comments are addressed.

3. WG adoption of draft-rogge-manet-dlep-radio-band (10 min)

• discussion on other PHY-related drafts as needed
  Don Fedyk: Why not the other drafts as well. It seems the draft may
  end up being related to the other two drafts.
  Please discuss on the list.
  Ronald: We could add the other two drafts adoption as well.

4. Future work (10 min)

• OLSRv2 Router restart.
• DLEP clarifications and Lesson learned.
• Inter-Satellite links.
  Alvaro: It is an Adhoc network. Would like to see others in the space
  more interest.
  Dean Bogdanovic: MANET is a good space for this.
  Alvaro: This is a big system and there are many parts. Given it is a
  big problem it probably has multiple places it could fit.
  The Routing part may well go in MANET. Depending on interest and how
  we strucucture it.
  Dean: It would speed up the work by getting a large community.
  Lou Berger: It might make sense to have a single place for it. MANET
  could be a good space. Is there talk of another space.
  Alvaro: Handing off to another Routing ADs (to avoid and conflict of
  interest) and the INT ADs to decide what we do with this.
  Will carry this to John and Andrew to see where this fits.
  There is semantic routing. There is a discussion about semantic
  routing in general. In the IETF we have not seen specific proposal for
  use cases. In RTG WG, there will be a discussion.
  Dean B.: I see there is a lot of need for semantic routing in the
  industry. Would like to see joint work to provide a better solution.

Comment from Chat
J Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin:
Semantic routing is not good to be robust
Specially in satellites links

5. Implementation: Using S-MPR in nrlsmf in conjunction with olsrd2 (10 min)

Ronald in 't Velt (as WG participant)
Implementation: multicast in manets, smart flooding, Relay Set
reduction.
Program DAF enables this. Looking to open source it. OTOH, so simple
that it is easily re-implemented.
Source based Multipoint Relay RFC 6621 Appendix B.
Slides presented have detail on this.